Shujat Ali alias Jangi Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Shujat Ali alias Jangi, facing charges under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession and transportation of 9.99 kg of charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and his criminal history. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the petition, holding that the accused was prima facie involved in the transportation of a significant quantity of narcotics, as established by the investigation and the pointation of the driver who transported the contraband. The court noted that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the accused is a habitual offender with multiple prior convictions and pending cases involving similar offences, which disentitles him to the concession of bail. The court directed the prosecution to submit the challan and ordered the trial court to conclude the proceedings within eight months.
- Does the recovery of narcotics from a third party's premises, based on the accused's pointation, constitute sufficient grounds for bail?
- Is an accused with a history of prior convictions and pending narcotics cases entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9-C, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
Order
Ali baig, C.J .--- The petitioner/accused namely Shujat Ali alias Jangi has moved the instant petition under section 497(2) Cr.P.C for grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No.22/2026 registered under S. 9-C of CNSA at Police Station City Skardu District Skardu.
2. The laconic version of prosecution as narrated in the FIR is that on 09.02.2026 at about 1540 hours, the local police on spy information raided the shop of Haji Sulaiman situated at Hussaini Chowk Skardu and recovered 09 kg and 990 grams of charas from a bag of maize corn belonging to the present petitioner/accused, whereupon the local police have lodged the aforesaid FIR against the above named petitioner/accused at Police Station City Skardu District Skardu.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that the alleged recovered contraband was not directly recovered from the possession of the present petitioner/accused, rather the said contraband was recovered from the shop of the one Haji Sulaiman, hence the local police have malafidely booked the petitioner in the instant case, as such the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused further argued that the investigation of the case has been completed by the police, and the petitioner has been committed to judicial custody at Skardu, as such he is no more required to the police for further investigation of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that the prosecution has failed to submit challan of the case within the stipulated period of time as defined in section 173 Cr.P.C, hence the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last several months and he is no more required to the local police for further investigation of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that the petitioner/accused is ready to furnish local solvent sureties if he is released on bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of State controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused by contending that the petitioners/accused is habitual offender and he is previously involved in several other criminal cases and he has also been convicted by the Court of law in some cases. The learned DPG further submitted that a huge amount of contraband has been recovered belonging to the petitioner/accused in presence of the independent witnesses. The learned DPG further submitted that the recovered contraband has been sent for chemical examiner's report. The learned DPG further argued that there is no enmity between the local police or any police official with the petitioner/accused and the offence committed by the petitioner is against the society, hence the petitioner/accused is not entitled for any concession of bail.
5. We have attended the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length with due care and patience and perused the available record with their able assistance.
6. From perusal of record it transpires that the accused/petitioner is directly charged in the FIR. Offence under section 9-C Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Although the alleged contraband charas was not recovered directly from the possession of the present petitioner rather as per record it was handed over to one driver Muhammad Ibrahim by the present petitioner/accused at Jalalabad Gilgit to transport the same to Skardu. The above named driver dropped/placed the same in a shop belonging to one Haji Sulaiman at Hussaini Chowk Skardu. On the pointation of Muhammad Ibrahim, the prosecution has recovered the huge quantity of charas belonging to the accused/petitioner from a bag which was lying in the aforesaid shop.
7. From tentative assessment of incriminating material collected by the prosecution against the petitioner/accused, it appears that the petitioner/accused is prima facie involved in transporting of huge quantity of narcotics, hence he is not entitled for concession of bail. Moreover, the present petitioner/accused is involved in many other such like criminal cases and he has been convicted in cases bearing FIR No. 04/2026 offence under sections 3/4 PEHO 1979, FIR No. 63/2018 for the offence under section 9-B CNSA, FIR No. 25/2019 offence under sections 3/4 PEHO 1979 and another criminal case FIR No. 61/2024 offence under section 9-C CNSA is subjudiced before the concerned trial Court, hence the petitioner seems to be habitual offender and previous convicted person as such he is not entitled for concession of bail.
8. For what has been discussed above, this bail petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed .
9. However, before parting with this order, the prosecution is directed to submit challan in the Court of competent jurisdiction and the learned trial Court is directed to conclude trial of the accused/petitioner within shortest possible time preferably within eight months of the passing of this order. File
JK/4/GB Application dismissed.